Nature, Red in Tooth and Claw?

By -

Comments

  1. Anonymous11:56 PM

    This is a non-human example of reciprocal altruism.

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah11:57 PM

    I see you're getting economism down!

    By the way, Ryan, did you see I revised my estimate of Rowe's model after his comments here? I was misled by his descriptions of the model.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous4:37 AM

    I am firmly against model blindness. I just don't see how this should change the priors of modern people who believe that nature is very violent, typically.

    I feel like I have little to add with respect to the argument across the blogs in general, which is why for the most part I kept my head down...

    ReplyDelete
  4. gcallah3:11 PM

    "the priors" -- a few more years of education, Ryan, and you will achieve complete incomprehensibility to all but 100 other people!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more